You are on page 1of 12

International Journal of Civil, Structural

,
Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering
Research and Development (IJCSEIERD)
ISSN(P): 2249-6866; ISSN(E): 2249-7978
Vol. 6, Issue 6, Dec 2016, 1-12
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

THE CHARACTERS OF TIME SERIES OF MONTHLY NUMBER OF
EARTHQUAKES AND FORECASTING PATTERN RECOGNITION
IN HUALIEN COUNTY
KO-MING NI
Department of Information Management, Ling Tung University, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
Hualien County, which is located on the eastern coast of Taiwan, is the area with the most frequent
earthquakes in Taiwan.In the 257 months from January 1995 to May 2016, totally 1,248 out of 3,063 labeled
earthquakes, which accounts for 40.74%, concentrated in that county.The earthquake data are subtracted from the
seismic archive of the Central Weather Bureau (CWB) of Taiwan. Threepurposes are set for this paper. First, to find out
whether the time series of monthly number of earthquakes in the past 257 months in Hualien is random or not. By
checking the autocorrelation function (ACF) and Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistic, the author finds that the time series of
Hualien County is not random. Second, to check the time series of the monthly number of earthquakes isstationary or
time series, and the results show that both ADF and PP tests revealed the time series in Hualien is a stationary one.
Third, to find out the pattern of the monthly number of earthquakes by ARIMA(p,d,q) model, and uses it to verify the
accuracy of the past data. As long as the proposed ARIMA(p,d,q) model can predict the number of earthquakes per
month in a certain accuracy, then it can be used to forecast the number of earthquakes per month in the near future.
After several trials, the author finds that ARIMA(2,0,0) is a suitable one. Errors of the forecasted and observed ones are

Original Article

not. The author uses Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) methods to test the stationarity of the

checked by mean absolute deviation (MAD), mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean
absolute percentage error (MAPE) formulas with different progressive months. Generally speaking, the errors calculated
by MAD, MSE, and RMSE equations are minimum if each time forecast three months. As for the MAPE method, a
severe penaltymay occur if the observed earthquake number is small, even failed if no earthquake is observed in a
month, because zero will show in denominator.By using ARIMA(2,0,0) as a seismic pattern to forecast, the author
obtains that two earthquakes per month will occur in Hualien from June to September, and one earthquake will happen
from October to December in year 2016.
KEYWORDS: CWB Archive, ARIMA (p,d,q) Model, Seismic Pattern

Received: Sep 23, 2016; Accepted: Oct 21, 2016; Published: Oct 24, 2016; Paper Id.: IJCSEIERDDEC20161

INTRODUCTION
Hualien County, which is located on the eastern coast of Taiwan, is the area with the most frequent
earthquakes in Taiwan. In the 257 months from January 1995 to May 2016, totally 1,248 out of 3,063 labeled
earthquakes, which accounts for 40.74%, occurred in that county. In the seismic archive of the Central Weather
Bureau (CWB) of Taiwan, two kinds of records are reported, labeled and unlabeled. The unlabeled ones are those
which are smaller in magnitude and cause influence only locally. On the other hand, the labeled ones are stronger
and affect more than two counties in twenty municipal areas of Taiwan. The labeled sequence always start from

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

2

Ko-Ming Ni

number one in the beginning of a new year. In this study, only labeled earthquakes in Hualien retrieved from CWB archive
are taken into consideration.
A time series is stationary if its mean and variance are constant over time, and if the covariance between two
values from the series depends only on the length of time separating the two values, and not on the actual times at which
the variance are observed (Hill et al.). If a time serious is not stationary, a danger of unrelated data may have significant
regression result. Such regressions are said to be spurious (Hill et al., Hanke and Wichern). In this study unit-root tests,
such as Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) methods are used to check the stationarity of the time
series of the monthly number of earthquakes from January 1995 to May 2016.
Forecastingis an interesting topic. Dozens of algorithms from simplest naïve to more advanced neural networks,
have been proposed (Hanke and Wichern). The author uses one of the most popular methods among them, ARIMA
(Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) method, to forecast the number of earthquakes per month in Hualien, because
it is versatile and can forecast stationary, trend, cyclical, and even seasonality (Hanke and Wichern, Hyndman and
Athanasopoulos).Furthermore, with different combination of autoregressive order (p), integration degree (d), and moving
average order (q) terms, ARIMA(p,d,q) can be equivalent to methods such as simple exponential smoothing, Hold’s, and
Winters’ (Hyndman and Athanasopoulos). As long as a suitable ARIMA(p,d,q) model is found, then it can be used to
forecast the monthly number of earthquakes for Hualien in the near future. The autocorrelation function (ACF) and
Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistic are used to check the randomness of the residuals of the regression results in order to confirm
the suitability of the used ARIMA(p,d,q) model.

CHARTERS OF MONTHLY NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN HUALIEN
Two important characters, randomness and stationarity, of the time series for monthly number of earthquakes in
Hualien will be tested in this section. The randomness check is to make sure the residuals of the regression do not contain
any predictive information, and the stationarity is for avoiding the spuriousness (Hanke and Wichern, Hill et al.).
Before formally checking the randomness and stationarity, the plot of the monthly number of earthquakes in
Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016 as in Figure 1 is visually inspected. The I-Chart used here is purposely to weed
out the months with extremely high earthquake numbers with three standard errors from the mean. Figure 1 reveals that the
time series seems not a white noise or not a randomness.

Number of earthquakes per month

I Chart of number of earthquakes per month in Hualien
1

50
40
30

1
1
1

20

1
1

1

1
1

1

1

11

1

10

UCL=15.18
_
X=4.86

0
LCL=-5.47
M
95
19

01

1
03
05
07
09
11
03
05
07
/0
M
M
M
M
M
08
0M
2M
4M
97
99
01
03
05
20
01
01
01
19
19
20
20
20
2
2
2
m
Su

Year/Month

Figure 1: Number of Earthquakes Per Month in Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016
Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

3

Randomness
From Figure 1, one finds that the mean value of the number of earthquakes per month in Hualien is 4.86 times.
From January 1995 to May 2016 is twenty one years and five months, or more specifically, 257 months. During this time
period, there are only fourteen (14) months with numbers above three standard errors of mean, which is 15.18 times. An
interesting finding is that the month with large number of earthquakes (means above three standard errors) month may be
followed smaller number of earthquakes in the next few months, usually, below average. For example, in June 2012 there
were 51 earthquakes, but next month there were only three (3), which was below the average of 4.86. This phenomenon is
obvious because an earthquake is energy released from the crest. More earthquakes stand for more released energy; hence,
a blundering month is expected after an active one.
The randomness can be checked by whether the autocorrelation coefficients (rk)between observed monthly
number of earthquakes at time t (yt ) and any time lag k (yt-k) are close to zero or not (Hanke and Wichern).
The autocorrelation coefficient has a form like (Hanke and Wichern):
n

rk 

 y

t  k 1

t

 y  yt k  y 

n

 y
t 1

t

 y

, k  0,1, 2,....n

2

(1)

Where

rk

= the autocorrelation coefficient for a lag of k periods

y = the mean of the values of the series

yt

= the observation in time period t

The autocorrelation function (ACF, which is the collection of many autocorrelation coefficients

rk

, k=0, 1, 2…) of

the time series of the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016 is shown as follows:
Autocorrelation Function for Hualien

(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)
1.0
0.8

Autocorrelation

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Lag

Figure 2: Autocorrelation Function (ACF) of Number of Earthquakes Per Month in Hualien
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

4

Ko-Ming Ni

One common portmanteau test is based on the Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistic. If the autocorrelations are computed
from a random (white noise) process, the LBQ has a chi-square distribution with m (the number of time lags to be tested)
degrees of freedom (Hanke and Wichern). The LBQ of different lags of the time series of Hualien is in Table A1 in
Appendix A. Based on the calculated values of LBQ and compare with the chi-squared table, the author can judge that the
time series of the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien is not random, because the calculated LBQ values are much
larger than the chi-squared values in the related m degrees of freedom at 95% significance level.
Stationarity
A stationary variable is one that is not explosive, nor trending, and nor wandering aimlessly without returning to
its mean (Hill et al.). One can check stationarity of a time series by visual inspection of Figure 1, or by more formal tests,
such as unit-root tests. Two unit-root tests are used to check the stationarity of a time series in this paper, Dickey-Fuller
(DF) and Philips-Perron (PP) tests. The Dickey-Fuller test has a number of variety forms as in Appendix B, and generally
referred as the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test (Hill et al.).
The Dickey-Fuller Critical Values
To test the hypothesis in all the cases, we simply estimate the test equation by least squares and examine the
t-statistic for the hypothesis that   0 (Equation B5). Unfortunately, this t-statistic no longer has the t-distribution, rather,
tau ( ) statistic has to be used(Hill et al.). The critical values of tau ( ) statistic are givenin Table B1 in Appendix B.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) Tests
The critical values of the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test of the time series of the monthly number of
earthquakes in Hualien are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The critical values and Dickey-Fuller unit-root test results

 ( t ) Test Statistic
-12.742

1% Critical Value
5% Critical Value
-3.990
-3.430
MacKinnon approximate p-value for  ( t ) = 0.0000

10% Critical Value
-3.13.

From the above table, one finds the  ( t ) test statistic -12.742 < -3.430 (5% critical value), the hypothesis test

H 0 :   0 (nonstationary) is rejected, and H 1 :   0 (stationary) is not rejected. In other words, the time series of the
monthly number of earthquakes per month is a stationary one.
For making a double check, the author also run the Philips-Perron (PP) unit root test. The critical values are in Table 2.
Table 2: Philips-Perron Unit-Root Test for Stationarity of Time Series of Earthquakes per Month in Hualien

 (t ) Test Statistic

1% Critical Value 5% Critical Value
-3.990
-3.430

(
t
)
MacKinnon approximate p-value for
= 0.0000
-12.757

From above table, one can alsofind the hypothesis test

10% Critical Value
-3.13.

H 0 :   0 (nonstationary) is rejected, and H 1 :   0

(stationary) is not rejected. Hence,that the time series of earthquakes per month in Hualien is stationary can be confirmed.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

5

DETERMINING THE SEISMIC PATTERN FOR HUALIEN COUNTY
By checking the form of the autocorrelation function (ACF, Figure 1) and partial autocorrelation function (PACF,
Figure C1 in Appendix C), and by trial and error, the author proposes that ARIMA(2,0,0) might be a good candidate.
Before using it as a forecasting model, the residuals after regression shall be checked carefully. If the pattern of residuals
appear like a randomness (white noise), then the proposed model may be a suitable one. The ACF of the residuals of
ARIMA(2,0,0) is shown in Figure 3, and it suggeststhat most of all the residuals are bounded in 95% confidence interval,
and the LBQ values in Appendix D also confirm that the time series of the residuals of ARIMA(2,0,0) is random.
Autocorrelation Function for ARIMA(2,0,0) residuals
(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)

1.0
0.8

Autocorrelation

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Lag

Figure 3: The ACF of the Residuals of ARIMA (2,0,0) of the
Monthly Number of Earthquakes in Hualien
From Figure 3, the coefficients of different lags are within the limit of 95% confidence interval. And from Table
D1, the calculated LBQ values are smaller thanchi-square with m-s degrees of freedom (dof), wheremis lags and sis
parameters (Hanke and Wichern). Takelags 20 of the residual of ARIMA (2,0,0) as an example, the value of lags m=20,
s=3, dof is m-s=17, then

2
0.05
= 27.59 (dof=17)> 24.89 ( lags=20) in Table D1. It mean that the time series of residuals for

the ARIMA(2,0,0) model forecasting is a white noise (randomness). More specifically, ARIMA (2,0,0) is a suitable model
to forecast Hualien’s monthly number of earthquakes.

CHECKING ACCURACY AND FORECASTING THE MONTHLY NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES
This section is dedicated to forecast the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien from July to December in
2016. Before performing the forecasting, the accuracy of the proposed model ARIMA (2,0,0) has to be evaluated first.
The author uses the data from January 1995 to December 2012 as a base, and calculates the average errors from 2013 to
May 2016. Some forecasting error evaluation techniques are used to check the accuracy. They are mean absolute deviation
(MAD), mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)
(Hanke and Wichern). The related equation is as follows:

M AD 

www.tjprc.org

1
n

n

i 1

y t  yˆ t

(2)

editor@tjprc.org

6

Ko-Ming Ni

M SE 

1
n

n

 y
i 1

1
n

RM SE 

M APE 

Where

1
n

t

 yˆ t

n

 y
i 1

t

2

 yˆ t 

n

y t  yˆ t

t 1

yt

(3)
2

(4)

(5)

yt is the observed monthly number of earthquakes and yˆ t is the forecasted monthly number of earthquakes

in Hualien.
By using ARIMA(2,0,0) as the forecasting model, and taking all the data from 1995 to 2012 as a basis file, using
them to forecast number of earthquakes per month in 2013; adding the observed 2013 data to the basis file, and using it to
forecast the numbers in year 2014, and so on and so forth. This procedure repeated until forecasting is finished. For
comparisonof the effect of progressing time on the accuracy of a forecasting, four kinds of progressing time periods are
selected, they are, one (1) month, three (3) months, six (6) months and 12 months. In the following tables, the number in
the parenthesis denotes how many months will be forecasted in each analysis. Say, MAD (3) means in each calculation the
data for every three monthswill be forecasted, and used them to compare with the observed data and check the errors by the
mean absolute deviation (MAD) method. From January 2013 to May 2016different error calculation methods are
expressedfrom Tables 3 to 6.
Table 3: Error Evaluation by the Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) Method with
Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016
2013
2014
2015
2016

MAD(1)
4.72
2.88
3.51
6.31

MAD(3)
4.07
2.65
3.72
5.14

MAD(6)
4.26
2.37
3.50
6.89

MAD(12)
6.67
2.94
3.87
7.03

From Table 3, one finds the MAD errors of each time forecasting 12 months are the largest in comparison with
each time progressing one, three and six months in each year. However, each time progressing one month (MAD(1)) does
not get the most accurate results as one expected. Forecasting three months (MAD (3)) each time is the most accurate in
the analysis, except in year 2015.
Table 4: Error Evaluation by the Mean Squared Error (MSE) Method with
Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016
2013
2014
2015
2016

MSE(1)
57.2
9.81
18.2
56.6

MSE(3)
52.1
8.09
18.6
36.6

MSE(6)
55.9
8.51
17.8
62.9

MSE(12)
93.0
14.4
35.4
89.9

Same as MAD, forecasting three months (MSE (3)) each time is the most accurate in the analysis, except in year
2015.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

7

Table 5: Error Evaluation by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) Method with
Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016
2013
2014
2015
2016

RMSE(1)
7.56
3.13
4.26
7.53

RMSE(3)
7.22
2.84
4.31
6.05

RMSE(6)
7.47
2.92
4.22
7.93

RMSE(12)
9.65
3.80
5.95
9.48

Same as MAD, forecasting three months (RMSE (3)) each time is the most accurate in the analysis, except in year
2015.
Table 6: Error Evaluation by the Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) Method with
Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016
2013
2014
2015
2016

MAPE(1)(%)
57.77
143.9
136.2
178.0

MAPE(3)(%)
41.33
142.0
160.4
168.9

MAPE(6)(%)
41.42
148.8
142.4
219.1

MAPE(12)(%)
73.40
68.88
65.30
130.5

By checking the equation of MAPE (Equation 5), if the denominator is zero (no earthquake in that month), this
algorithm fails. If the forecasted number differs from the observed one too much, the result of this equation will get severe
penalty. From Table 6, the results are most accurate when progressing 12 months in each forecasting (MAPE(12)) except
2013.In the MAPE(12) column, the average errors of the monthly number of earthquakes forecasted in Hualien from year
2013 to 2015 are between 65.30 to 73.40%, and the average error of the first five months in 2016 is 130.48%, almost twice
as those in the previous three years’. The reason may be due to the fact that the volatility of earthquake data of the first five
months in 2016 makes ARIMA (2, 0, 0) model difficult to trace. The number of earthquakes from January to March, 2016
were less than two times per month, but in April and May there were 16 and 17 times respectively. Those are three standard
errors above the mean value, making ARIMA (2,0,0) respond sluggishly. The number of earthquakes in the remaining
months of year 2016 can be forecasted by ARIMA (2,0,0) model as follows:
Table 7: Forecast the Monthly Number of Earthquakes by
ARIMA(2,0,0) Model from June to December in 2016
Month
June July August September October November December
Numbers
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Two earthquakes per month will occur from June to September, and one earthquake will happen from October
to December in year 2016.

CONCLUSIONS
After analyzing the characters of monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien and recognizing its pattern, the
following conclusions can be obtained:

The time series for the monthly number of earthquakes from January 1995 to May 2016 is not random by visual
inspection as well as by checking the Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistics.

Unit-root tests such as Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) are used to test the stationarity of
the time series of Hualien’s monthly number of earthquakes. The hypothesis test

www.tjprc.org

H 0 :   0 (nonstationary) is

editor@tjprc.org

8

Ko-Ming Ni

rejected, and

H 1 :   0 (stationary) is not rejected. In other words, the time series of the monthly number of

earthquakes per month in Hualien is a stationary one.

The Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA(p,d,q)) model is used to explore the pattern of the times
series of the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien. Through careful inspection, the author finds
ARIMA(2,0,0) is a good model for forecasting the earthquake number in Hualien County.

Historicalseismic archive from the Central Weather Bureau (CWB) is evaluated by the proposed ARIMA(2,0,0)
model with four kinds of progressive periods (one, three, six and 12 months) for checking the forecasting errors.
Generally speaking, each time forecasting three months can get best results by checking errors with the mean
absolute deviation (MAD), mean squared error (MSE), and root mean squared error (RMSE) formulas. As for the
mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) equation, because it has observed monthly earthquake number in the
denominator, as long as no earthquake occurs in that month, then MAPE algorithm will fail.

By using ARIMA(2,0,0) as a monthly number of earthquakes forecasting pattern, the author presumes that two
earthquakes per month will occur from June to September, and one earthquake will happen from October to
December in year 2016.

REFERENCES
1.

Central Weather Bureau (CWB) of Taiwan. http://www.cwb.gov.tw. Accessed June 20, 2016.

2.

Hanke, J. E., and Wichern, D. W. Business Forecasting, 9th ed. (2009). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

3.

Hill, R. C, Griffiths, W. E, and Lim, G. C. Principle of Econometrics, 4th ed. (2012). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

4.

Salvatore, D., and Reagle, D., Statistics and Econometrics, 2nd ed. (2011). McGraw-Hill et al. Companies, Inc.

5.

Hyndman, R. J. and Athanasopoulos, G.Foresting: Principles and practice. (2014). OTexts.com.

APPENDICES
Appendix A
The first 20 lags of ACF for the time series of number of earthquakes per month in Hualien from January 1995 to
May 2016 is in Table A1.
Table A1: Autocorrelation Function (ACF) of Time
Series of Earthquakes per Month in Hualien
Lag
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

ACF
0.253363
0.134621
0.032357
0.035332
0.071311
0.099146
0.065798
0.032586
0.045569
0.071694
0.258491
0.09773

t
4.06
2.03
0.48
0.52
1.06
1.46
0.96
0.48
0.66
1.04
3.75
1.34

LBQ
16.69
21.42
21.7
22.02
23.37
25.97
27.13
27.41
27.97
29.35
47.43
50.03
NAAS Rating: 3.01

The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Table A1: contd.,
0.083152
1.14
-0.01646
-0.22
0.032727
0.44
0.053085
0.72
0.111392
1.51
0.002764
0.04
0.047006
0.63
0.070735
0.95

9

51.91
51.99
52.28
53.06
56.5
56.5
57.12
58.53

Appendix B
B1: Dickey-Fuller Unit-Root Tests (Hill et al.)
(B1.1) Dickey-Fuller Test 1 (No constant and no trend)

yt   yt 1  vt

(B1)

Where

yt  yt  yt1

(B2)

   1

(B3)

 t = residuals

(B4)

H 0 :   0 (nonstationary)

(B5)

H 1 :   0 (stationary)

(B6)

(B1.2) Dickey-Fuller Test 2 (With constant but no trend)

yt     yt 1  vt

(B7)

(B1.3) Dickey-Fuller Test 3 (With constant and with trend)

yt     yt 1  t  vt

(B8)

(B1.4) Dickey-Fuller Test 4 (General form)
m

yt     yt 1   as yt  s  vt
s 1

(B9)

As many lagged first difference term are added to ensure that the residuals are not autocorrelated, the number of

 t , or the significance of

lagged terms can be determined by examining the autocorrelation function (ACF) of the residuals
the estimated lag coefficients

as . The unit root test

based on the above equation and its variants (intercept excluded or

trend included) are referred to as augmented Dickey-Fuller test.
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

10

Ko-Ming Ni

Table B1: Critical Values for the Dickey-Fuller Test (Hill et al.)
Model

yt   yt 1  vt
 yt     yt 1  vt
 y t     y t 1   t  v t
Standard critical values (tstatistic)

1%
-2.56

5%
-1.94

10%
-1.62

-3.43

-2.86

-2.57

-3.96

-3.41

-3.13

-2.33

-1.65

-1.28

Appendix C
The partial autocorrelation function (PACF) for the time series of monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien from
January 1995 to May 2016 is shown in Figure C1.
Partial Autocorrelation Function for Hualien

(with 5% significance limits for the partial autocorrelations)
1.0

Partial Autocorrelation

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Lag

Figure C1: Partial Autocorrelation Function (PACF) of Earthquakes Per
Month in Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016
The partial autocorrelation coefficient at lag k is the autocorrelation between
for by lags 1 through k−1. In other words, the partial autocorrelation coefficient is

k

yt and yt  k that is not accounted
on

yt  k in the regression (Salvatore

and Reagle)

yt   1 yt 1   2 yt  2  .....   k yt  k  vt
Where

(C1)

 i is the regression coefficient, and vt is the residual term.

Appendix D
The first 20 lags of the ACF for the residuals of the ARIMA (2,0,0) model are shown in Table D1.
Table D1: The Autocorrelation Function of the Residuals of ARIMA(2,0,0)
Lag
1
2
3
4
Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

ACF
0.001306
0.003682
-0.031164
-0.006395

t
0.02
0.06
-0.50
-0.10

LBQ
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.27
NAAS Rating: 3.01

The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

www.tjprc.org

Table D1: Contd.,
0.039164
0.63
0.075745
1.21
0.031990
0.51
-0.002011
-0.03
0.004927
0.08
-0.001304
-0.02
0.243451
3.87
0.024883
0.37
0.048279
0.73
-0.058355
-0.87
0.010618
0.16
0.026277
0.39
0.106358
1.59
-0.046829
-0.69
0.021474
0.32
0.043835
0.65

11

0.67
2.20
2.47
2.47
2.48
2.48
18.51
18.68
19.32
20.25
20.28
20.47
23.61
24.22
24.35
24.89

editor@tjprc.org